I am aware that the first edition dates from 1834 and that historians probably have learned quite a bit about ancient Rome since then. However, having scanned through it I found it very interesting and comprehensive. It also seems to be useful because it provides a lot of Latin terms.

So, I am wondering whether it is so completely out of date that it might be better not to read it in order to prevent faulty information to find its way inside one's brain. Or do you think that most of the information is still valid?Thank you for your help,

hi, Adam's antiquities looks like a great book – I read the first chapter last night online and I've decided to read the whole thing: many thanks for the reference.

it seems (from the part I've read so far) to limit its evidence to classical literary sources and doesn't cover archaeological evidence etc., and so if you combine reading a chapter of this book (e.g. the chapter on COMITIA, pg 54 + ff.) with a recent study of the same area (e.g. Mouritsen's Plebs and Politics in Late Republican Rome, 2001 which is another good book worth reading: here's a review: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001-12-12.html) you'll have a good basic understanding of the topic. i think this would be a better approach than just jumping straight into the recent studies themselves – Adam's book covers well the latin vocab for each topic, which will help you understand better the recent studies.

Thanks for having a look at it. I am going to order an 1897-edition of that book plus a first edition of the equally interesting and useful "Illustrated Companion to the Latin Dictionary and Greek Lexicon" by Anthony Rich (also available on Archive.org).

The "Illustrated Companion" (app. 800 pages) is a "a glossary of all the words representing visible objects connected with the arts, manufactures, and every-day life of the Greek and Romans, with representations of nearly two thousand objects from the antique"